The University of Missouri at Columbia
Chemistry 416 - Organic Spectroscopy - Fall Semester 1993

Teaching Evaluations
Overall Rating 3.14

Criteria of evaluation FS93
Organization and preparation of lectures and discussions 3.33
Instructor's enthusiasm for the subject matter 2.87
Helpfulness in answering questions and clarifying points 2.73
Ability to lecture in a manner which is easily followed 3.00
Ability to stimulate interest in the subject 3.07
Overall rating of the instructor 2.67
Your rating of how much you have learned 3.13
Overall rating of the course 3.14
Overall rating 3.00



1. List the strong and weak features of the lecturer and include suggestions for improvement.
2. Compare the lecturer to others you have had (especially with those in science courses at this level).
3. List the strong and weak features of the overall course (not the lecturer) and include suggestions on how its quality might be improved.
4. Compare the course with the others you have taken.
5. & 6. Your overall rating of the course and your approximate GPA prior to this semester.

Student 1
1. Dr. Glaser has a good understanding of the material he presents in class, but often is not open to constructive discussion.
2. In comparison with past and present instructor I would place Dr. Glaser in the top 10% of good professors.
3. Strong: Tries to make the student think on his own. Good amount of homework that allows you to become more familiar with the course. The only weak feature of this course is that there was too much theory and not enough interpretation. Outside of this class out knowledge of interpretation will be tested and little theory.
4. It is probably in the top 10% again.
5. Chemistry GPA=unknown.

Student 2
1. Strong: know his material. Well organized.
2. Good
3. Strong: left blank. Weak: too much theory, not enough on interpretation of spectra.
4. left blank
5. Organic Chemistry, 4.0

Student 3
1. Very organized. Should not make remarks that reflect how a student has done the test in front of the whole class no matter how suttle.
2. B
3. A, The course gives a good basic idea of the various spec techniques.
4. A
5. Chemistry 3.8

Student 4
1. left blank
2. left blank
3. left blank
4. left blank
5. left blank

Student 5
1. Didn't always have a good grasp of the concepts
2. I have had much better instructors in course on this level.
3. Weak: we only learned the theory the theory not the practical applications.
4. It was poor compared to other courses.
5. PhD Chemistry, 3.2

Student 6
1. 50 minutes teaching for each class should be seriously considered.
2. Active but loose of the organization.
3. Emphasis is not as clear as the others
4. Not very good
5. Inorganic Chemistry 3.5

Student 7
1. Strong Theory, weak, applications
2. Good
3. We should have worked more on problems instead of on papers and exams (which are too many)
4. This is a more difficult course, too many materials needed to learn.
5. Organic

Student 8
1. He is specific on what he ants the students to know and understand but he is occasionally had to find during his specific office hours for instructor on problems with homework.
2. He is fair, easy to understand what aspects are important in the lecture. Makes the class and work enjoyable.
3. It gives a good broad understanding of concepts of UV, IR, NMR, and Mass Spec but examples could be more practical.
4. Is tough but fair.
5. Analytical Chemistry, 3.0

Student 9
1. He needs to prepare himself before lectures instead of going straight from book. Did a good job on IR, UV-Vis, after that, he went downhill. Also, out of 900 points, 475 are yet to be obtained in the last week and a half of the semester.
2. He is pretty humorous, but sometimes makes people feel stupid. Needs to come down to earth.
3. UV-Vis, IR were covered first, whereas I feel it would have been better to begin with NMR.
4. The hardest and most time consuming as compared to others.
5. 3.3

Student 10
1. Overheads, just leave them on longer) were very helpful. Please don't erase the board too fast some of us are slower writers.
2. More understandable the way of teaching
3. I really needed this course for my research. I learn a lot and I thank him for this.
4. More advance and a lot more to learn.
5. Bioorganic, 3.0

Student 11
1. Strong: organization, home work sets very useful. May help to slow down in explanations of a few areas.
2. Very organized and understandable.
3. Might be helpful to do a little more spectra interpretation. HW sets very useful.
4. Requires hard work!
5. Grad/ 3.6

Student 12
1. Strong feature: he is bright and knowledgeable.
2. Weak feature: a bit disorganized.
3. As good as others
4. This course has to cover the whole field of organic spectroscopy which is very difficult to do. Suggest: break the course into 2.
5. Informative
6. Radiochemistry 3.7

Student 13
1. Strong: relayed atmosphere. Weak: I do not believe that he know the material. The exams did not reflect the lectures. The material that was presented was theoretical as opposed to material.
2. The instructor was below average. His knowledge of the material was poor.
3. Teach the class from a more practical standpoint.
4. Below average
5. 4.0

Student 14
1. left blank
2. left blank
3. Overall course was very helpful to understand the basic principles of spectroscopy. I would like to suggest that we could have more practice on analyzing combines spectral data.
4. left blank
5. left blank

Student 15
1. I liked the overheads he used and his homework was well prepared and thought out good indication of test of test to come.
2. Dr. Glaser is knowledgeable in this field. He is a good teacher. Seemed to be concerned with students' progress and well-being.
3. I learned quite a bit of theory behind all of the spectroscopic techniques. I wish the NMR had to be more interpretive.
4. Good course- I will take all of this material with me throughout my career.
5. left blank